Isn't a big GOP donor pushing the Woodstock Museum?

I wonder where Mr. Bill or the handlers were when she did this one??? Really, really stupid move for her. Talk about good campaign commercials that will play well in the midwest, west and south. If she gets the nomination, we'll be seeing alot of these commercials. Shows that she wastes money and doesn't have "family values." If she gets nominated, we'll have president Mr. 9/11 or mitt the flip in 08.

Isn't any journalist or blogger every going to do the most rudimentary Google search and find out what this so-called "Woodstock Museum" really is? Does everyone just let the Republicans sink the hook in their lips and drag them into the boat?

The "Woodstock Museum" is actually a brand new $70 million outdoor amphitheater performing arts center 90 miles from NYC. To the beltway pundits, think Rock Creek Amphitheater operated by the federal government.

The Bethel Woods Performing Arts Center was mostly paid for by private funds from the founder of Cablevision. The State of NY kicked in $15 million. The town of Bethel kicked in for sewer and infrastructure costs. Since it opened last year, it has hosted the NY Philharmonic, the Boston Pops, and a string of rock, country, and jazz concerts. It is leading a rejuvenation of the summer tourism business in the Catskills. A very good economic development project and an absolutely stunning facility:

http://www.bethelwoodslive.org/

Photo gallery here:

http://www.bethelwoodslive.org/About/PhotoGallery/

Come on Josh. I know your impressive staff could have debunked this Republican smear instead of just helping them spread it. Here's a hint: how do you know when a Republican is lying? When his lips are moving. I'm willing to bet that a little serious digging would unearth a $1 million earmark for a cultural or performing arts facility in Arizona...or probably even that new Jetsons football stadium they just built.

and the most remarkable thing about using this line against hillary, is that she was probably the least likely of the candidates to have attended woodstock.

hell, you can bet cindy mccain has done more drugs and partying than hillary clinton.

No more boomer presidents! I can't take another 8 years of petty bickering over Vietnam and Woodstock. You gave us the internet and Saturday Night Live, now politely close-up shop and move on.

The past 16 years have been nothing but a whiney and polarizing rehash of stuff that went down 40 years ago. Enough already, get over it.

We've had two boomer presidents so far and that was plenty. What's next?

What is so offensive about letting this kind of smear go unchallenged is that the Bethel Woods Peforming Arts Center is exactly the kind of project that we should be looking for. A major investment that will benefit people from four states (NY, PA, CT, NJ) and provide economic stimulous for a century. Two-thirds financed by private philanthropic money with some public assistance. The ideal public/private venture to add value to our overall national infrastructure.

I know that every single one of you has performing arts venues in your region and that they add to the quality of life.

Why should this kind of project be allowed to be dismissed as somehow unseemly? The media needs to stop accepting these BS Republican narratives just because some loose change from the sofa might have gone to someone other than Halliburton or an oil company.

It only "looks really, really bad" because not one lazy reporter has even bothered to look up what the earmark was for. They let the Republican narrative go completing unchallenged, including the lefty blogs such as this one.

What's really a travesty is the New York Times. They've run feature stories on the Bethel Woods project over the years. It's a major addition to the greater NYC region. The editors know damn well it's not a "Woodstock museum".

HWC, I just looked it up from your links. Why can't you just admit it was a stupid move? I don't get it. How is it a smear when its true? Why attack the media on a true point? I have more problems with the media not getting information or pressing to get information from the candidates. Are you a campaign worker as well?

D'oh. I screwed up the blockquote feature. The quote in my post above was supposed to continue all the way until just before the words "No doubt." Whatever happened to the handy "Preview" button?

I'm certainly no Hillary supporter (in fact, I'm giving serious thought to sitting out the election if she's the Dem nominee), but, c'mon Michael!

"It just looks really, really bad"

It's a lousy $1 million, fer cryin' out loud! And, OK, Leon723, the copy about the museum DOES mention the Woodstock Festival - as part of and iconic of "the social, political, cultural and musical transformations of" the "unique American experiences of the decade of the 1960s".

Really kind of hard to argue that the social, political, cultural and musical transformations of 1960s aren't worth a museum somewhere, isn't it?

Get off your high horses already, you're as bad the Hilary staffers . . .

I can only assume, Michael, that you are rather young, and therefore lack historical perspective (either that or you're just emotionally 'young' and lack perspective).

The social and political upheaval of the sixties were captured rather dramatically in popular musical development. It's difficult to point to another period in time where those three elements were so inextricably intertwined.

I remember when I was a callow youth in the 1980's questioning my boss about an event that occurred some years before in the corporation for which I worked - it made little sense to me, hearing about it in retrospect. My boss just shrugged, and with a far-away look on his face said, "what can I say, it was the 60's". As if that said it all.

It's a period in history worth our study, it contains the roots of a lot of what is coming to a head in this country now.

So, I ask again dasher, what are they going to put in the museum? What do you think in middle america, the red belt, the voters will think that they are putting in the museum and what the museum is promoting?

By the way, I am old, lived through the sixties and am just making an observation. Your posts are not making any observation or conclusion and are typical generalizations of a staffer trying to deflect the issue. What is the purpose of your deflection? The issue won't go away. I really don't get it.

fwiw, i think you can certainly defend the museum without being a Hillary staffer. What you can't defend is the notion that the earmark was not even for a museum but for a concert hall. It was that silly notion that only someone on the HRC staff or at least injected with HRC Kool Aid could peddle. And I agree with Michael that if you go the the website it could not be clearer that what the earmark was for was the museum.

As to whether this is a real issue or a BS issue that does not deserve more than a couple of days of play, I have to vote BS issue. On the other hand, I could see the Repubs using this effectively because they are shameless and were able to use Kerry's friggin interest in windsurfing against him.

Why is McCain running anti-Hillary ads? Is he running against Hillary for the Democratic nomination now?

If he was smart, he would be running ads showing Rudy morphing into Hillary, and continually refer to them both as pro-choice, pro-gay New Yorkers who lack strong defense credentials. He should be running those ads all the damned time in South Carolina.